Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

ozso · Sunday at 8:39 AM

Always in His Presence said:
So were they.

How about addressing the topic instead of crying about how the title reads.

Deflecting and derailing is fun.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 8:45 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
I think people had more of an issue with these people being used as props in some political gamesmanship by red state governors. Lying to people and then transporting them to a part of the country they’ve never been to before just to make some political point about is cruel but we see now, cruelty towards the undocumented is the official of the administration.

Border states and border communities had been sounding these alarm bells for decades.

For instance, Del Rio TX... population of 34,000, had periods where 20k undocumented people were going through there per month.

Cities like El Paso (population 700k) where they have anywhere between 30-40k undocumented people living there at any given time.

Gila AZ is a more extreme example, a small down 80 miles north of the border (that was only built around supporting 2,000 residents) being a common drop off place, miles and miles away from the nearest metropolitan area, having 3 bus loads of people dropped on in their town.

It's unfortunate that it had to devolve to that sort of spectacle, but how long were the southern states expected to "just use their words" only to be met with preachy condescension and accusations of bigotry from the New England states and upper coastal areas?

The reality is, the red states that had been trying to push for stricter immigration rules through the proper channels for a decade+ prior to Abbott and DeSantis doing their "stunts", only to regularly get shot down.

GoldenBoy89 · Sunday at 9:00 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Border states and border communities had been sounding these alarm bells for decades.

For instance, Del Rio TX... population of 34,000, had periods where 20k undocumented people were going through there per month.

Cities like El Paso (population 700k) where they have anywhere between 30-40k undocumented people living there at any given time.

Gila AZ is a more extreme example, a small down 80 miles north of the border (that was only built around supporting 2,000 residents) being a common drop off place, miles and miles away from the nearest metropolitan area, having 3 bus loads of people dropped on in their town.

It's unfortunate that it had to devolve to that sort of spectacle, but how long were the southern states expected to "just use their words" only to be met with preachy condescension and accusations of bigotry from the New England states and upper coastal areas?

The reality is, the red states that had been trying to push for stricter immigration rules through the proper channels for a decade+ prior to Abbott and DeSantis doing their "stunts", only to regularly get shot down.

I don’t think it’s right to use people as props to make a political point. Sorry.

wing2000 · Sunday at 9:08 AM

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

No, I do not agree with the President.

I do support border security - security that based on sound analysis, not some political talking pont - Build the wall. Trump's own chief of staff, a former general with command experience in Central/South America, voice opposition to the sole focus on walls.

I also do not support a deterrence policy that is based on cruelty. It is not who we are as a nation. Current polling reflects American's disgust with this poilicy.

I do not support deporting people who lived and contributed to their American communities for decades.

I do not support federal agents violating the 4th and 5th Ammendents of the Constitution.

BCP1928 · Sunday at 9:10 AM

ozso said:
It helps when one reads what was written rather than going by what one reads into it ie ozso: "same kinds of things" vs GoldenBoy89: "same exact things".

Well, it's all hypothetical speculation anyway. Would Obama have prevented Paola Kluat from attending her final immigration hearing and held her incommunicado instead? Would he have allowed her a breast pump? Who can ever say?

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 9:14 AM

GoldenBoy89 said:
I don’t think it’s right to use people as props to make a political point. Sorry.

If you were a policy maker/governor, and you had exhausted all of the options for the past 12 years, what would your next move be?
(that's a sincere question)

Noting:
They'd try to pass bills, congressional democrats would block them
They'd try to pass their own state laws to use their own resources for enforcement, democratic federal administrations would block on grounds that it's not their purview
Republican administrations would try to do it via Executive Order, advocacy group would immediately challenge it in the "friendly" DC circuit court to get it blocked

So it was an honest question, if you were a border state lawmaker/governor trying to get a handle on it, and you'd tried all those other options, what would you next move be? You've already made it clear what your next move wouldn't be, so I'd be curious to hear what your Plan D would be after A, B, and C failed?

dogs4thewin · Sunday at 9:25 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Based on that logic, that would defend the concept of "squatters" would it not?

If you owned a piece of property (that I wasn't legally authorized to be on), and I decided to move in.

"You shouldn't be able to kick me out if the only law I've broken was being here...apart from that, I've been productive and have broken no other laws"

Here is the deal I feel that country wise though there are WAY too may people being productive to worry about going around and doing raids just for that as really even if the person is not paying income tax ( which many are) they are still buying things and keeping the economy somewhat running. Also it cost a LOT of money to do enforcement when you have millions of people and I mean what you going to do check papers that has been done before and it was NOT pretty. Plus, if someone is squatting then by defination that person is NOT paying to live there they are not paying to use the property, if on the other hand people have been here and have been payig into the system those are the people I have no issue with the ones pulling their weight . Not to mention that when you have people ( especially a large number like that that are scared of the law, but oterwise are obeying the law you have situations where people end up not getting the help they need ( not talking about welfare but about police and medical because they are afraid of being deported is that really what we want?

I mean heck there are some other laws that are waived in those cases for example in many areas if someone reports that they or someone else that they are with is overdosing often that person will not face any charges for mear procession or being under the influence Why? because the law does not want people to be afraid of seeking help for fear they will be arrested. Some areas have also either legalized or at the very least decriminalized women seeling themseves because they do not want women who are victims of crime to be scared to speak up sense they themselves are breaking the law that and really that is something that if she is consenting to in and of itself is victimless That is really an issue for another thread the point being that you do not want to enforce the law to the point that people are afraid to reach out for lifesaving help for fear they will get in trouble.

BCP1928 · Sunday at 9:31 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
You have it backwards, it's not the "pro border enforcement" position that's appealing to victimization and emotion.

"Their country is extremely poor, we should be welcoming"
"The reason their country is in shambles and they feel need to move is because of US corporatist policies"
"The policy of enforcing border restrictions is causing family separation"
"People just don't want them coming here because they're racist and don't want brown people in their country"

Those are are arguments appealing to emotion and victimization.

Obviously you don't think those are cogent arguments, which is why you don't understand the protesting.

rjs330 said:
Yeah that argument is a trope. The moment you decide to use race as an excuse you have left the realm of cogent argument into the realm of emotional victimization.

When it is said that people are coming illegally, and tge response is, "you just dint want brown people here," then one is no longer arguing whether or not people are violating the law, but instead one has no cogent answer, so one appeals to emotions. And its the worst kind of appeal because its a character assassination. Pushing people to defend themselves instead of defending the point.

So you accuse others of doing something you are doing yourself. Even though someone never even mentioned race, you do.

Immigration law has prohibitions on anyone. Not just brown people. We expect everyone to abide by the law. No one has a right to come here just because they want to. And one who comes here illegally has no right to stay. There are those who come with permission, who also may have those permissions removed.

Your trope is only based upon race. An emotional attack designated to create an emotional response. No substantive argument is used.

ThatRobGuy said:
My argument is simply:
Do you want me to provide roads that adequately will support all the traffic?
Do you want me to know how many police, EMT, and firemen this city needs?
Do you want me to know roughly what size school we need to build and how many teachers to hire?
Do you want me to know how much land we need to approve for residential vs. commercial use?
Do you want me to know how large of a hospital this town needs?

If the answer to those questions is "Yes", then I need to have a rough idea of how to estimate how many people I can expect to have here.

Of course, and those things are routinely considered by any municipality when a population increase is considered.

ThatRobGuy said:
And it should be noted, the need for specificity increases as the robustness of the social safety nets increase. It's no coincidence that the nations that have some of the most generous social safety nets have some of the strictest immigration laws. "Free healthcare and free college tuition for everyone" planning requires being able to come up with a fairly precise headcount.

You don't understand the argument. It's not really about race, it's about culture. Didn't somebody in this thread mention attacks on "Judeo-Christian" culture? To the extent that the deportations effort of the administration are tainted by notions of the "Great Replacement" they are reprehensible and should be protested. Trump got a big swing vote on the practical problems of immigration. But now that we see his culture warriors at work we are appalled. Trump and Noem have come out and said specifically that one of their main goals in LA is to free the people of the city of "tyrannical socialist government"--and other blue cities when they get around to it. That wasn't what the anti-immigration swing voters really wanted.

essentialsaltes · Sunday at 10:39 AM

Gallup poll
The poll also shows some interesting shifts in favor of immigration in general.

79%, say immigration is “a good thing” for the country today, an increase from 64% a year ago and a high point in the nearly 25-year trend.
Almost 9 in 10 U.S. adults, 85%, favor a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, and nearly as many say they favor a path to citizenship for all immigrants in the country illegally as long as they meet certain requirements.

That increased support for pathways to citizenship largely comes from Republicans, about 6 in 10 of whom now support that, up from 46% last year.

wing2000 · Sunday at 10:43 AM

....now that the border is "secure"......isn't it time for the GOP to get this done?

That increased support for pathways to citizenship largely comes from Republicans, about 6 in 10 of whom now support that, up from 46% last year.

Say it aint so · Sunday at 11:02 AM

Always in His Presence said:
This thread isn't about Trump -

I know he is a fixation in some minds -

Agreed. Don't know why the OP of this thread brought him up.

rjs330 · Sunday at 11:28 AM

Fervent said:
it's you presenting emotional arguments that are permeated with a sense of white victimhood.

Fervent said:
I wasn't the one who introduced the idea of race.

Yes you most certainly did when you used the trope. Accusing the poster of using white victimhood. Which most certainly is a trope ad explained. Instead of addressing his point you used white victimhood as a way to just slap down his arguments without having to respond. Its trope used to illicit an emotional response instead of providing a cogent response.

Fervent · Sunday at 11:38 AM

rjs330 said:
Yes you most certainly did when you used the trope. Accusing the poster of using white victimhood. Which most certainly is a trope ad explained. Instead of addressing his point you used white victimhood as a way to just slap down his arguments without having to respond. Its trope used to illicit an emotional response instead of providing a cogent response.

His "point" was to accuse those who aren't foaming at the mouth about illegal immigration of having their opposition based on the race of illegal immigrants. It was literally nothing but a blatant appeal to emotion, as you rightfully pointed out making the discussion about race is, and in it he displayed a sense of white victimhood. It's not a trope, and insisting that it is is nothing but a deflection.

Say it aint so · Sunday at 12:05 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
If you were a policy maker/governor, and you had exhausted all of the options for the past 12 years, what would your next move be?
(that's a sincere question)

Noting:
They'd try to pass bills, congressional democrats would block them
They'd try to pass their own state laws to use their own resources for enforcement, democratic federal administrations would block on grounds that it's not their purview
Republican administrations would try to do it via Executive Order, advocacy group would immediately challenge it in the "friendly" DC circuit court to get it blocked

So it was an honest question, if you were a border state lawmaker/governor trying to get a handle on it, and you'd tried all those other options, what would you next move be? You've already made it clear what your next move wouldn't be, so I'd be curious to hear what your Plan D would be after A, B, and C failed?

Senate GOP blocks border bill.
Not sure what the reference is with Dem administrations blocking anything less something that was just unconstitutional. Which has been the case in Texas. And it should be noted the 5th district court of appeals (Texas) is one of the most conservative out there.
I don't think a law crafted in Texas shopped to the DC courts unless they proved standing in that courts jurisdiction.

Say it aint so · Sunday at 12:16 PM

I really don't have an issue if someone who is here illegally and actively enacting crime, like all those gangs including those whose skin lack Melanin. The problem is ICE has a daily quota to make. So what was once a pledge to crack down on actual criminals, just didn't give them the numbers they wanted so they can tweet about it. So now looking for brown Spanish speaking people they are staking out Home Depots, Car washes, trying to enter elementary schools, and this headline from the other day: Youth baseball coach intervenes after ICE agents in NYC approach members of his team during practice."
As I have said before and no different then the local town having traffic ticket quotas, when that is in effect you get desperation and abuse. But again what you see in today's environment with ICE raids where I am sure before year's end, we are going to see some kind of Kent State incident is what I'm afraid is going to happen.

Richard T · Sunday at 12:29 PM

I agree with some things but disagree with even more.

The negatives:

Political grandstanding and showmanship in border issues
Abuse of the legal system for deportations
Use of putting prisoners in El Salvador
Highly publicized raids on businesses. (Low key seems far better to me)
The likely unconstitutional stripping of birthright citizenship
The likely failure to keep many Hispanics in the GOP
The breaking up of families of illegals that have jobs and history working in the USA.
The harassment of those who are legally here by not only questioning many but deporting some with no real cause.
The federalization of National Guard members when the state is not even asking for help. May I point out this is the opposite of Shay's rebellion where the state asked for help but the rest of the union would not respond.

The positives I like are:

Trump's backtracking on illegals in certain industries. He is making provisions for farm migrant laborers and illegals employed hotels and food processing. Trump’s New Amnesty Would Cover About Two Million Illegal Immigrants | National Review
Trump talking about more permanent amnesty as he did in his past. May I point out that the USA can't have high wage inflation, because the public debt depends on low rates well into the future, and with tariffs costs looming in the hundreds of billions adding labor to that pressure will only make things worse.
Enforcing better control of the borders which has stopped many from even attempting to cross into the USA.

DaisyDay · Sunday at 1:05 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
Based on that logic, that would defend the concept of "squatters" would it not?

If you owned a piece of property (that I wasn't legally authorized to be on), and I decided to move in.

"You shouldn't be able to kick me out if the only law I've broken was being here...apart from that, I've been productive and have broken no other laws"

Squatter laws vary widely. Remember "possession is 9/10ths of the law"? And "adverse possession"? It is complex.

rjs330 · Sunday at 4:08 PM

BCP1928 said:
Obviously you don't think those are cogent arguments, which is why you don't understand the protesting.

They AREN'T cogent arguments. They are appeals to emotions and feelings.

BCP1928 said:
Trump got a big swing vote on the practical problems of immigration. But now that we see his culture warriors at work we are appalled.

I honestly think people in the left would be appalled no matter what. Why? Because they believe in the emotional arguments. We all knew it. I heard it from many sources that as soon as a mother, father, husband, wife etc was sent packing the left would be outraged. The moment a business was raided the left would be outraged. We all knew the left would be appalled no matter what.

Trump is attacking the practical problems, which does not nor has it ever only been rapists and murderers. The practical problems include all the problems illegals bring with them.

And there are a LOT of Americans who support the actions.

And the understanding of freeing LA from their socialist governance in this area is seen as a good thing.

I particularly don't agree with it. If LA wants a socialist government then far be it from me to say they cant. However, immigration law is not tied to local governments. Locals can choose to be a sanctuary city if they desire. But that has NO bearing on the Federal right to control immigration EVERYWHERE.

rjs330 · Sunday at 4:22 PM

DaisyDay said:
Squatter laws vary widely. Remember "possession is 9/10ths of the law"? And "adverse possession"? It is complex.

That's what thieves and those that support thievery say. If one can prove ownership, then if someone refuses to leave they are nothing g more than a thief and a felon.

ThatRobGuy · Sunday at 4:53 PM

BCP1928 said:
You don't understand the argument. It's not really about race, it's about culture. Didn't somebody in this thread mention attacks on "Judeo-Christian" culture?

Not sure how that would be the case given that the overwhelming majority of the people in question are Hispanic (heavily Catholic)

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?

✦

Part of the IT crowd

We're Still Here

E pluribus unum

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?​

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Similar threads

Do you agree with the President on border enforcement and illegal aliens?